Judgment : 1. The above civil revision petition has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 111. 1997 made in R.C.A. No. 965 of 1994 by the court of VII Small Causes Judge, Madras, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 22. 1994 made in R.C.O.P. No. 2390 of 1992 by the XIV Small Causes Judge, Madras. 2. Today when the above matter has been taken up for consideration, this Court, on perusal of the lower court orders, the pleadings of parties, the evidence adduced by parties before the trial court and the first appellate Court, in consideration of the grounds of revision and upon hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents as well, this court passes the following order:- The R.C.O.P. in the trial court had been filed by the landlord/respondent herein seeking eviction of the petitioners/tenants under section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the sole ground of wilful default in payment of monthly rents which was admittedly Rs. 1,200. The reasons assigned on the part of the respondent/landlord before the trial court were that the original owner of the premises bearing door No. 84, Sir Thiyagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17 was one Dr. C. Ranganathan, and the same had been let out in favour of the second petitioner herein, who is the allottee and the statutory authority for the same is the first petitioner herein, that after the death of the said Dr. C. Ranganathan, the present respondents father, there was no communication of any sort and inspite of the present respondent having become the owner in the partition and having been permitted by the other legal representatives of the deceased to get the rent from 3. 89 onwards, the second petitioner did not pay the monthly rents in his favour resulting in a notice being issued on 4. 89, but demanding the landlord to produce the legal heir-ship certificate the second petitioner refused to pay the rent. Since, on many demands, the rent had been paid, the statutory tenant, the first petitioner herein issued a letter, as per his communication dated 28. 89, but demanding the landlord to produce the legal heir-ship certificate the second petitioner refused to pay the rent. Since, on many demands, the rent had been paid, the statutory tenant, the first petitioner herein issued a letter, as per his communication dated 28. 91 requiring the second petitioner the allottee to remit the rents in favour of the landlord and inspite of the communication of the said order the rent was deliberately and wilfully withheld by the second petitioner inspite of many demands made thereafter to remit the arrears of rent and the regular monthly rents and thus committed wilful default in payment of monthly rents from 3. 89 to 38. 92 and hence the respondent would seek the Court to order eviction of the tenants from the premises. .3. The learned counsel arguing the case of the petitioners herein would contend that it was not the case of inability to pay the rent on the part of the petitioners, nor were they unwilling to pay but since the landlord with whom the rent had to be remitted had not been specified legally. The deceased Dr. C. Ranganathan, had many issues and without authenticated legal heirship certificate being produced on the part of the landlord/respondent herein for quite a long time, the tenant was not able to pay the rent and on ascertainment of the present respondent as the legal representative to receive the rent of the premises, the arrears accrued from 3. 89 to 38. 92 that is to the tune of Rs.52,800 had been cleared and the same had also been accepted by the respondent and during that time the respondent had also come forward to file the R.C.O.P. 4. 89 to 38. 92 that is to the tune of Rs.52,800 had been cleared and the same had also been accepted by the respondent and during that time the respondent had also come forward to file the R.C.O.P. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that the first petitioner/statutory authority being the District Collector and the second petitioner allottee being the Commissioner of Police, Madras City, besides the aforementioned reasons for causing the delay in remitting the huge arrears of rent of Rs.52,800 that accrued, a certain amount of delay had become inevitable but the same occurred in obtaining the administrative concurrence at various levels, so as the release the said amount in order to be paid to the respondent and the said delay was neither due to slackness nor wilful nor wanton on the part of the petitioners but it could only be attributed to the said approvals obtained at various levels of the administrative set up and hence it is only a reasonable administrative delay which could not be construed in any manner as wilful default as contemplated by law and hence the decision arrived at by the trial court concluding that the petitioners have committed wilful default thereby requiring them to vacate the premises which is being used as R-4 Pondy Bazaar, Police Station is erroneous and not acceptable and consequently the decision of the first Appellate Court also inso far as confirming the fair and decretal order of the trial Court is erroneous and unsustainable and on such reasons the counsel for the petitioners would ultimately pray for the revision petition to be allowed by setting aside not only the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Authority but also the fair and decretal order passed by the Rent Controller. .5. .5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord would contend that the first petitioner being the Collector and Accommodation Controller and the statutory tenant and the second petitioner being the Commissioner of Police and allottee of the premises, the counter filed by the first petitioner had been adopted by the second petitioner; that the payments are made through the allottee in advance since he is empowered to release the amounts from the consolidated funds kept for such purposes and he is the person who has got to explain the long delay of 42 months; that the first petitioner is the statutory tenant and he has not at all let in any evidence and it is only the allottee who has explained the delay as administrative one and on the part of the statutory tenant in not having explained the long delay, the same remains unexplained and in such absence of explanation by the statutory tenant the reasons offered anew by the allottee as administrative delay is berefit of legal force and becomes unacceptable. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent would further stress his point saying that it is the blunt case of the petitioners that since they were not able to fix with whom the amount had to be paid, the delay had occurred. The statutory authority to whom the matter had been referred to adjudicate fixing the person entitled to receive the rent, held an enquiry after notice to the allottee and the landlord and based on the materials placed before him, the Collector and the Accommodation Controller passed the order in Exhibit P-7 on 28. 91, directing the second petitioner to pay the rent to the respondent herein and inspite of the said order having been communicated to the allottee as admitted in Exhibit P-6, dated 25. 1992 in time the rents were not paid by him and the only reason attributed on the part of the petitioners, unavoidable administrative delay having not been either pleaded or explained in the defence pleadings before both the Courts below, the said administrative reason now put forth is only a farce and unacceptable and would urge the court to hold that the petitioners have definitely committed wilful default in payment of rents, thus justifying the conclusions arrived at by the Rent Controller and the confirmation of the same made by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit the following decisions reported in The State of Tamil Nadu by Collector, Madras v. Janaki, 1992 (II) M.L.J. 82, wherein a similar defence of administrative delay caused by the tenants therein had not been accepted by this Court. Citing another case of the Apex Court reported in Bhaskar v. Venkatarama Naidu, 1997 (I) MLJ 109 SC, wherein it has been decided by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court that "it is the duty of the tenant to pay the monthly rent month after month and if the rents are not paid the delay is nothing but wilful". 8. The learned counsel for the respondent would lament that even after landing in the court and the trial court having adopted three hearings waiting for the tenant to come forward to make the payment when there was only an arrears of rent of three months to be paid, the petitioners did not have the courtesy to pay the rent on the last day, as a result of which the Court started recording the evidence. The learned counsel would thus justify the decisions arrived at by the Courts below to be on the correct line and would pray for dismissing the above civil revision petition ordering the eviction of the petitioners/tenants from the premises. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that so for as the role of the petitioners as tenants is concerned, the first petitioner District Collector, is the statutory tenant and the second petitioner, Commissioner of Police is the allottee. But for all practical purposes the premises is being used as the Police Station and that on the part of the first petitioner to pass orders in Exhibit-A-7 he took his own time to hold the enquiry summoning the parties, deciding the matter and communicating the same to the second petitioner as revealed in Exhibit R-6 and hence the earlier delay of nearly three years could not be avoided since only under Exhibit A-7 the actual landlord came to be fixed by the statutory authority concerned in this case and would thus pray for warding off the delay that had occurred prior to the coming into being of Exhibit A-7 order. I am convinced so far as the delay that has occurred prior to the coming into being of Exhibit A-7 since only under this document the owner came to be identified in this case. 10. But it would be pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that even thereafter for 15 months the petitioners have deliberately failed to effect the payment of the arrears of rent. The learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the order under Exhibit A-7 had been passed on 28. 91 and the arrears of rent amount of Rs.52,800 came to be paid on the part of the petitioners only on 12. 1992 thus again causing an inordinate delay of 16 months after passing of the Exhibit A-7 order and would urge in the light of the above judgment cited and as definitely concluded by the courts below, the petitioners have committed wilful default in payment of rent within the meaning of the relevant provision of law. He would further contend that the administrative delay that is said to have occasioned the default in payment of rent is attributed a new on the part of the petitioners which have not even been pleaded in their counter before the Rent Controller and of -late as a result of afterthought to get rid of the legal hurdle the petitioners have now come forward to put up the plea and would pray for rejecting such a novel plea that is taken as defence for the default by the petitioners. 11. In the above circumstances, in all probabilities, I see no reason to interfere with the conclusions arrived at concurrently by the Courts below and consequently this court finds no merit in the civil revision petition and the same fails and gets dismissed. The judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No. 965 of 1994 by the court of VII Small Causes Judge, Madras, in confirming the fair and decretal order dated 22. 94 made in RCOP No. 2390 of 1992 by the XIV Small Causes Judge is hereby confirmed. No costs. 12. The judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No. 965 of 1994 by the court of VII Small Causes Judge, Madras, in confirming the fair and decretal order dated 22. 94 made in RCOP No. 2390 of 1992 by the XIV Small Causes Judge is hereby confirmed. No costs. 12. Consequently, on consideration of the fact that the premises is occupied by the Police department wherein the Pondy Bazaar Police Station is still functioning effectively and it is a fact that nowhere else except the same locality the Police Station could be located and since it would take some what a longer time for the police authorities concerned to fix a similar place in the same locality suitable to their convenience which in fact depends upon very many strategic points, since at every place a police station cannot be fixed and further in paramount consideration of the fact that not for a single day a police station can go without functioning and to make it a convenient transition of the place, the time for eviction of the petitioners/tenants herein and to handover vacant possession to the landlord is fixed as nine months. The petitioners are directed to vacate and surrender vacant possession to the landlord within nine months from today.